Posts

The Government of Canada recently announced that the former Tundra Gold Mine, located in the Northwest Territories, has been successfully remediated. The cost of clean-up was $110 million and was paid for by the government.

Tundra Mine was briefly operational in the 1960’s and was used as a dumping ground in the 1980’s. It’s former owner, Royal Oak Mines went bankrupt in 1999.

Remediation of the site included revegetating soil, sealing mine openings, consolidating and isolating tailings and waste rock, treating petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soils, erecting barriers for erosion control, and removing buildings. The clean-up project lasted more than a decade.

Though some re-vegetation has begun, the land – around 240 km north-east of Yellowknife – will remain recognizably an old industrial site for decades to come.

Tundra Mine Site post clean-up (Photo Credit: Jamie Malbeuf/CBC)

Dominic LeBlanc, Canada’s newly installed minister for northern affairs, called Tundra’s remediation “a great example of the hard work of northerners and the importance of partnerships with local Indigenous communities.” Northern residents represented 76 percent of the project’s suppliers and 61 percent of its employees. The Minister stated that the restoration will help local Dene and Métis peoples once again use the land for traditional practices.

The Canadian government will continue to oversea that monitoring of the site to ensure it remains stable. Monitoring, using a combination of on-site equipment and drones, will cost an unspecified further sum each year.

More work to be done remediating the North

According to an article in Cabin Radio, Tundra’s successful clean-up remains a drop in the larger ocean of contaminated sites within the NWT. Tundra is the 24th site under federal supervision to have reached this stage, a spokesperson for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada said by email to on Cabin Radio.

A federal webpage last updated in 2013 suggests Canada is responsible for more than 50 significant contaminated sites in the territory, including those 24.

A separate federal website lists 1,634 contaminated sites within the Northwest Territories, where a contaminated site is defined by the Federal Goverment as “one at which substances occur at concentrations (1) above background (normally occurring) levels and pose or are likely to pose an immediate or long term hazard to human health or the environment, or (2) exceeding levels specified in policies and regulations.”

Some entries on the latter list are considered remediated and their files closed. Some are smaller sites not felt worthy of their own, separate clean-up projects. Several dozen of them, for example, are grouped under one project to clean up the Canol Trail, a World War Two initiative which left contaminated soil, asbestos, and a range of hazardous materials strewn across 355 km of the Sahtu.

In the 2017-18 financial year, public records show federal agencies were obliged to spend money on some 275 separate contaminated sites in the Northwest Territories. $157,000 was spent assessing a range of those sites, while a little over $103 million was spent on remediation work.

Of that figure, around $23.6 million was spent remediating the Tundra site in that financial year.

Unsurprisingly, Yellowknife’s Giant Mine – considered among the most toxic sites in Canada, harbouring 237,000 tonnes of poisonous arsenic trioxide in underground chambers – was the only site receiving more remediation money.

In the same period Canada spent just over $36 million on Giant, where full remediation work does not even begin until 2020.

Giant, like Tundra, was owned by Royal Oak when the company collapsed and the site became an unwanted federal problem. The full bill for Giant’s clean-up and maintenance – a program of indefinite, certainly decades-long duration – is expected to reach $1 billion in today’s money.

The British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy is requesting the assistance on B.C. environmental professionals to complete a survey regarding the suite of contaminated site services provided by the Land Remediation Section. The survey is part of an internal Ministry effort to examine and evaluate the ways in which contaminated sites services are provided in support of administering the Environmental Management Act and Contaminated Sites Regulation, and feedback will inform efforts to improve the client experience in obtaining these services.

The survey takes approximately 10 minutes to complete, allowing for more or less time depending on how many or few contaminated sites services you use. The survey is open for approximately 6 weeks, and will close on September 5, 2018.

As reported by the CBC, the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) has identified up to six known contamination sites at a New Brunswick military base as it works to determine whether the cancer-causing defoliant Agent Orange was buried surreptitiously there decades ago.

Agent Orange is an herbicide and defoliant chemical. It is widely known for its use by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. It is a mixture of equal parts of two herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. In addition to its damaging environmental effects, the chemical has caused major health problems for many individuals who were exposed.

Officials at the department’s Directorate of Contaminated Sites presented a map showing the various locations to a former military police officer and a retired civilian employee of Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, N.B. — both of whom say they witnessed chemical drums being buried on the base in separate incidents over 30 years ago.

Past Use of Agent Orange at CFB Gagetown

Agent Orange had been used on the base in the past. In 2010, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, the Canadian Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture) at the time, announced that the Government of Canada was extending the one-time, tax-free ex gratia payment of $20,000 related to the testing of unregistered U.S. military herbicides, including Agent Orange, at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Gagetown in 1966 and 1967.

For three days in June 1966 and four days in June 1967, Agent Orange, Agent Purple and other unregistered herbicides were tested at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Gagetown in cooperation with the U.S. military to evaluate their effectiveness. These are the only known instances that these military test chemicals were used at CFB Gagetown. Agent Orange, Agent Purple and other unregistered herbicides are not used at the base today. The base uses only federally regulated herbicides for brush control during its annual vegetation management program.

Claims

The claims by retired sergeant Al White and Robert Wilcox, who worked at the training base in the 1970s and 1980s, were first reported by CBC News last month.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan promised an investigation and officials are now trying to cross-reference the eyewitness accounts with existing records. The maps are meant to jog the memories of the two men, and to find out whether their claims involve existing dumps or unreported ones.

A massive asbestos dump

The list of contaminated sites is extraordinary. It shows, among other things, more than 3,900 barrels of asbestos waste buried in the same area as the suspected chemical dump.

Officials have offered to escort White onto the base so he can point out the area where he believes Agent Orange was buried. They and White have yet to agree on a date for the visit.

“Pointing on a map isn’t going to work … obviously it has to be a face-to-face opportunity,” White said in an interview.

A spokesman for the defence department confirmed an invitation had been extended but downplayed the significance, saying officials were “simply conducting discussions … in order to gain further insight into their claims.”

The visit would be closed to the media, said department spokesman Dan Lebouthillier in an email.

White said none of the locations pointed out thus far by defence officials match his recollection of the location.

“I say that with clarity,” he said.

The burial, he claimed, involved over 40 barrels stacked on a flatbed truck. It took place early in the morning in the late spring of 1985 and happened in what he described as a disturbing, clandestine manner that has troubled him ever since.

Map showing the Use of Herbicides at CFB Gagetown from 1952 to Present Day

White said he didn’t believe it was his place to come forward until he lost three friends — all former Gagetown soldiers — to cancer.

Wayne Dwernychuk, an expert who spent over 15 years studying Agent Orange contamination and its effects on combatants during the war in Vietnam, said it’s good the federal government is trying to get to the bottom of the mystery.

Once White points out the area, he said, ground scanning technology can quickly and accurately assess what might be underground.

“They should initiate some sort of ground penetrating radar,” he said. “If something turns up, I believe they should follow through with some deep core sampling to determine the extent of the contamination.”

One of the sites listed by National Defence was a chemical dump that has since been excavated — something Wilcox, the second witness, claims to have seen.

Another location is where the military claims to have disposed of rinsed, empty chemical drums.

The main refuse site — known as the Shirley Road dump — “may also [have] accepted drums,” according to a department statement. There was a separate place for dumping ash from burning coal.

During the investigation 14 years ago into the spraying of Agent Orange at the base in the 1960s, officials looked at a fifth location near a tank firing range, but claimed nothing was buried at that spot.

The sixth possible location involves the dumping of asbestos. Federal environment officials have acknowledged in the past that the fire-resistant insulation, ripped out of 15 nearby federal buildings in 1980s, was present at the base, but have never acknowledged the enormous quantity of it.

The waste asbestos was all wrapped and stuffed into metal barrels.

Five years ago, the federal government’s annual report on contaminated sites pointed to the same locations on the base and said assessment on further remediation was under consideration.

The risks of remediation

The same report noted the unique challenges such a clean-up would involve.

The report said tests of the wetland adjacent to the contaminated sites did not show chemical concentrations that would be of concern.

Lebouthillier said the locations are “capped” — meaning there’s a barrier between contaminated and uncontaminated soil — managed and monitored “according to federal environmental regulations and guidelines.”

Agent Orange used during the Vietnam war has left that country’s the soil contaminated and compromised. Many Vietnamese have life-long health problems as a result to exposure to Agent Orange. The United States has provided almost $42 million since 2007 toward the effort to clean up the effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam.

Past Investigations in Canada

In 2006, Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was retained by Public Works and Government Services Canada on a series of contracts on behalf of the Department of National Defence (DND) to research, organise and analyse all available information concerning the herbicides used at each Canadian Forces (CF) site across Canada. An objective of this undertaking was to confirm whether tactical herbicides such as Agent Orange and Agent Purple tested in 1966 and 1967 at CFB Gagetown were ever tested at other current and former CF Bases, Stations or Wings.

Golder’s review of the information has found no evidence of spray applications of the tactical herbicides Agent Orange or Agent Purple at any Bases, Stations or Wings aside from CFB Gagetown. Records do indicate that the non-tactical and commercially available herbicides 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D were potentially concurrently used, stored or disposed at each of Carp (Ontario), CFB Chatham and CFB Gagetown (New Brunswick), CFB Borden (Ontario) and another unidentified site.

As such, evidence to-date is to the effect that Agent Orange and Agent Purple were only applied at CFB Gagetown.

As reported by Catherine Thompson in the Waterloo Region Record, It’ll cost about $8.6 million to rid the soil and groundwater of contaminants at the former Kitchener, Ontario Frame site.

The huge industrial site at Homer Watson Boulevard and Bleams Road has been undergoing cleanup for the past three years. The soil and groundwater were contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), contaminants that are often found at former industrial sites.

The former Kitchener Frame Site (Photo Credit: Philip Walker/Record staff)

The city and the developers — Gary Ball and Marty Pathak — are keen to see the site redeveloped, said Rob Morgan, the City of Kitchener’s co-ordinator of development of former industrial sites. The site of the auto parts plant variously known as Budd Canada, ThyssenKrupp Budd Canada and Kitchener Frame, has been vacant since 2009.

Redevelopment of the sprawling 32-hectare site will give a big boost to the city’s supply of industrial land, Morgan said. About 16 hectares are slated industrial, 10 hectares are retail and 1.5 hectares are office. Another four hectares will be used for things like roads and storm water management.

“It’s much-needed land,” Morgan said. “Kitchener doesn’t have a lot of vacant industrial land left to offer.” There’s a couple of parcels, on Shirley Avenue and Strasburg Road, but not much else, he said.

The former Kitchener Frame site would be the biggest property ever to apply for the program, Morgan said.

Under the program, a developer cleans up a site and redevelops it. The new development generates far more taxes than the vacant land had. The city and region hand over the additional tax revenue to the developer for a set number of years, to repay the cost of the environmental cleanup.

The site now has an assessed value of $8 million, and generates about $108,000 in property taxes a year, split roughly 40-60 between the city and the Region of Waterloo. Once it’s cleaned up and redeveloped, it’s expected to have an assessed value of around $112 million, and generate $2.2 million in municipal property taxes.

“It’s a great program,” Morgan said. In exchange for foregoing the increased taxes for a certain number of years, the city gets vacant land cleaned up and converted to a productive use that generates more taxes and jobs.

“These lands are sitting dormant, contaminated, sometimes for many years. As a resident I’d rather see it cleaned up and earning money for the tax base.”

The Kitchener Frame site will be split into 11 different parcels from 1.3 to 10 hectares. Kitchener doesn’t expect to see the first new development on the site until about 2020, and development could continue for the next 10 or 15 years beyond that.

Morgan thinks it’s likely the property will be developed well before then, though. “They’ve got a lot of interest in that property. It’s a great location, because of its proximity to the 401; you’ve got a lot of variety in the lots; Kitchener has a strong manufacturing base, and we’ve got a lot of skilled workers.”

City staff are recommending that Kitchener council approve the application, which must also be approved by regional council, likely in June.

Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (LNAPL) Management is the process of LNAPL site assessment, monitoring, LNAPL Conceptual Site Model development, identification and validation of relevant LNAPL concerns, and the possible application of remediation technologies. The presence of LNAPL can create challenges at any site. Examples of LNAPLs include gasoline, diesel fuel, and petroleum oil.

This guidance, LNAPL-3: LNAPL Site Management: LCSM Evolution, Decision Process, and Remedial Technologies, builds upon and supersedes both previous ITRC LNAPL guidance documents in an updated, web-based format. LNAPL-1 and LNAPL-2 are still available for review; however, LNAPL-3 is inclusive of those materials with new topics presented and previous topics elaborated upon and further clarified.

This guidance can be used for any LNAPL site regardless of size and site use and provides a systematic framework to:

develop a comprehensive LNAPL Conceptual Site Model (LCSM) for the purpose of identifying specific LNAPL concerns;

Initial development and continued refinement of the LCSM is important to the identification and ultimate abatement of site-specific LNAPL concerns. Figure 1-1 identifies the stepwise evolution of the LCSM, the specific purpose of each LCSM phase, and the tools presented within this guidance to aid in the development of the LCSM. As depicted, the LCSM is the driving force for identifying actions to bring an LNAPL site to regulatory closure.

LNAPL remediation process and evolution of the LNAPL conceptual site model (LCSM).

This guidance document is organized into sections that lead you through the LNAPL site management process:

Section 2 – LNAPL Regulatory Context, Challenges, and OutreachSection 2 identifies some of the challenges implementing agencies face when investigating, evaluating, or remediating LNAPL sites. These challenges include regulatory or guidance constraints, a lack of familiarity or understanding of LNAPL issues, and poorly or undefined objectives and strategies. This section also stresses the importance of identifying and communicating with stakeholders early in the process in order to address issues or concerns that can lead to delays or changes in strategy. Understanding and recognizing these challenges and concerns during development of a comprehensive LCSM can help reduce costs and lead to a more effective and efficient resolution at an LNAPL site.

Section 3 – Key LNAPL ConceptsSection 3 provides an overview of key LNAPL terminology and concepts including LNAPL behavior following a release to the subsurface (i.e., how LNAPL spreads away from the primary release point, its behavior above and below the water table, and how its migration eventually stops and naturally depletes). An understanding of these basic terms and concepts is crucial for developing a comprehensive LCSM and an effective LNAPL management plan.

Section 4 – LNAPL Conceptual Site Model (LCSM)The LCSM is a component of the overall conceptual site model (CSM), and emphasizes the concern source (i.e., the LNAPL) of the CSM. The presence of LNAPL necessitates an additional level of site understanding. The unique elements of the LCSM are presented as a series of questions for the user to answer to help build their site-specific LCSM. Ultimately, a thoroughly-developed, initial LCSM provides the basis for identifying the LNAPL concerns associated with an LNAPL release.

Section 5 – LNAPL Concerns, Remedial Goals, Remediation Objectives, and Remedial Technology GroupsSection 5 describes the decision process for identifying LNAPL concerns, verifying concerns through the application of threshold metrics, establishing LNAPL remedial goals, and determining LNAPL remediation objectives. This section also introduces remedial technology groups, the concept of a treatment train approach, and how to transition between technologies to address the identified LNAPL concern(s) systematically and effectively. It is important to understand the content of this section prior to selecting and implementing an LNAPL remedial strategy.

Section 6 – LNAPL Remedial Technology SelectionSection 6 describes the remedial technology screening, selection, and performance monitoring process. This section begins by identifying technologies recognized as effective for mitigating specific LNAPL concerns and achieving site-specific LNAPL remediation objectives based on the collective experience of the LNAPL Update Team. The LNAPL Technologies Appendix summarizes each of the technologies in detail and presents a systematic framework to aid the user in screening out technologies that are unlikely to be effective, ultimately leading to selection of the most appropriate technology(ies) to address the specific LNAPL concerns.

This guidance also includes relevant, state-of-the-science appendices for more detailed information on LNAPL specific topics:

LNAPL Technologies Appendix
This appendix describes in more detail each of the 21 LNAPL technologies introduced in the main document. The A-series tables describe information to evaluate the potential effectiveness of each technology for achieving LNAPL goals under site-specific conditions. Information includes the basic remediation process of each technology, the applicability of each technology to specific remedial goals, and technology-specific geologic screening factors. The B-series tables describe information to evaluate the potential implementability of each technology considering the most common site-specific factors. The C-series tables describe the minimum data requirements to make a final technology selection through bench-scale, pilot, and/or full-scale testing; they also describe metrics for tracking remedial technology performance and progress.

Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD) Appendix
This appendix provides a technical overview of NSZD for LNAPL and the methods by which rates can be estimated and measured. It also provides a discussion of long-term LNAPL site management and how NSZD can be applied as a remedy including decision charts to support integration of NSZD and case studies demonstrating its use. For this document, the original ITRC NSZD document (ITRC LNAPL-1) was updated and incorporated into the main body and appendix.

Transmissivity (Tn) Appendix
LNAPL transmissivity has application throughout the life cycle of a LNAPL project. This appendix provides an understanding of how transmissivity connects to the broader framework for LNAPL management including LNAPL recovery and mobility, and the potential for NSZD to decrease LNAPL transmissivity and mobility over time.

Fractured Rock Appendix
This appendix describes the behavior and differences of how LNAPL behaves in fractured bedrock formations. While some of the same physical principles apply for multiphase flow in fractured aquifers as in porous aquifers, unique characteristics of finite and restricted fluid flow paths can lead to unexpected results in fractured settings.

Researchers in Taiwan performed field trials on the ability of persulfate to remediate trichloroethane (TCE) contaminated groundwater. The purpose of the field trial was to (1) evaluate the efficacy of TCE treatment using persulfate with different injection strategies; (2) determine the persistence of persulfate in the aquifer; (3) determine the persulfate radius of influence and transport distance; and (4) determine the impact of persulfate on indigenous microorganisms during remediation.

The researchers discovered that persulfate removed up to 100% TCE under specific conditions. Overall, they found a single, higher does of persulfate was more effective at destroying TCE than two separate, smaller doses.

As reported in the Buffalo Law Journal/Buffalo Business First, Gov. Andrew Cuomo designated four Brownfield Opportunity Areas in Buffalo last month, providing another tool for area stakeholders to have the areas developed.

He designated areas in South Buffalo, the Buffalo Harbor, the Buffalo river corridor and the Tonawanda Street corridor.

“These designations will equip Buffalo officials with tools and resources needed to carry out their vision of community revitalization and help turn these blighted properties back into economic engines,” he said. “This is one more reason why Buffalo remains a city on the move.”

Before the designation, the city had to submit plans for the areas, said Michael Hecker, senior associate at Hodgson Russ. “The goal is to find these areas and figure out a way for the state to work with them to help them with long-term planning on how to redevelop the sites.”

It’s a three-step grant process to determine how to revitalize a brownfield area, Hecker said.

“The first step is a pre-nomination study,” he said. “The second is step is nomination and the third is implementation strategy.”

South Buffalo Brownfield Opportunity Area (Credit: Buffalo Urban Development Corporation)

In the pre-nomination phase, a municipality and associated groups look at an area that may have an issue and explore ways to revitalize the area. In the nomination process, funding sources are considered, as well as market trends. And in the third step, implementation of the plan is identified and there’s a thorough accounting of funding sources.

“It’s a wholesome package that the state has developed as a basis to spur economic development,” Hecker said.

The three steps are completed through the New York State Department of State. Once the governor designates a brownfield opportunity area, various programs can lead to more state benefits.

“If you do your redevelopment project through a BOA, there are additional tax credits available,” Hecker said.

“It’s basically the governor recognizing that these areas have spent the time and focus on an economic redevelopment strategy and they should qualify for additional credits to spur redevelopment in these areas.”

He said the designations fit in with the city’s Green Code under Mayor Byron Brown.

“(BOAs) are a central component of our city’s Green Code initiative and my administration’s place-based economic development strategy,” Brown said in a statement.

“The State’s approval of the BOAs, created by the city of Buffalo with significant public input, places Buffalo at the forefront of brownfield redevelopment nationally and will further enhance Buffalo’s ability to compete for investment, bringing new life to even more neighborhoods by making use of underutilized properties that create jobs for city residents.”

Some of the areas will need to go through remediation in order to be redeveloped, according to Hecker. For instance, the South Buffalo Brownfield Opportunity Area, which consists of approximately 1,968 acres in an area that was once heavily industrialized by the steel industry, has sites that will require remediation.

Plans for that site include a nine-hole golf course, indoor and outdoor recreation and expansion of the Tifft Nature Preserve.

The Buffalo River Corridor Brownfield Opportunity Area also has long-standing contamination issues. It’s made up of 1,050 acres in the Old First Ward, containing 58 possible brownfield sites.

“One of the main areas of that project is restoration and enhancement of the environmental quality of the river and enhancing waterfront access,” Hecker said.

“Buffalo is lucky in the fact that it has an unbelievable natural resource with water access. Over the last 10 to 15 years, you’ve definitely seen an enhanced focus on trying to leverage that natural resource to be an economic driver. I think the city, to its credit, has done a very good job of doing that. This is just another option for them to utilize that program to benefit it.”

The Buffalo Harbor Brownfield Opportunity Area is 1,045 acres, with six brownfield sites. The area includes waterfront space at both the Inner and Outer harbors.

Assemblyman Sean Ryan said BOA designation will help with future waterfront development.

Hecker said the designated areas represent places where longtime residents can see the potential benefit to redevelopment.

“One of the interesting things to me about these projects is that they really are fully integrated community projects,” he said.

Brownfield funding is available at the federal level through the Environmental Protection Agency, as well, Hecker said.

While the Trump administration has pared back the EPA, Administrator Scott Pruitt has said that brownfields would remain a priority to the agency.

“There hasn’t been any change in that area,” Hecker said.

Pruitt is focused on shifting the responsibility for contaminated sites to states, Hecker said.

“(Pruitt) wants states to work together with the federal government in a limited capacity to manage these things on their own,” he said.

“From a standpoint of economic development, especially with President Trump’s focus on infrastructure, I don’t think this is going to be a major issue unless there are further cuts in the budget. That remains to be seen.”

http://hazmatmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/BOA-Location.jpg348550hazzmatt1http://hazmatmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/hazmat-logo.jpghazzmatt12018-01-10 16:06:012018-01-10 16:06:01Brownfield Redevelopment in Western New York

The U.S. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) recently released its newest guidance document, Characterization and Remediation of Fractured Rock. The guidance addresses significant advances in skills, tools, and lessons-learned in understanding contaminant flow and transport in fractured rock environments. If the unique characteristics of fractured rock sites are understood, then modern tools and approaches can be applied to successfully set and meet characterization and remediation goals at these sites.

Contaminated fractured rock sites have often been considered too complex to be remediated, so site managers often default to simply containing the contamination. This guidance provides a high-level introduction to the unique puzzle faced when investigating and remediating fractured rock sites. With the new strategies and technologies presented here, fractured bedrock challenges that may have prevented site remediation in the past are now surmountable.

The guidance begins with a general discussion of fractured rock characteristics and a comparison of fractured rock and porous media CSMs. The guidance further introduces the parameters necessary for developing a fractured rock CSM and stresses the need for an experienced multidisciplinary team. The 21-Compartment Model is also introduced. This model is an adaptation of the 14-Compartment Model (Sale 2011) for unconsolidated materials. This model helps its users to visualize and understand contaminant storage, flux, and flow pathways in fractured rock.

Understanding contaminant fate and transport in fractured rock allows site managers to develop a robust CSM that can guide remediation. Specific geology and lithology and structure control the unique mechanics of fluid flow in fractured rock. In addition to these physical properties, chemical properties affect fate and transport and are equally important in developing the CSM.

A downloadable and searchable Tools Selection Worksheet is provided , which was initially used in ISC-1 (ITRC 2015b). The Tools Selection Worksheet allows users to screen for tools to address specific data needs and collect qualitative, semiquantitative or quantitative data as needed. The Tools Selection Worksheet links to detailed descriptions of all the tools and to references for further information. The guidance describes how data can be managed, interpreted, and displayed. Table 5-4 presents valuable lessons learned from real-world fractured rock characterization and remediation projects.

As a CSM nears completion, the guidance offers direction for developing remedial objectives and strategies. A table shows how to assess the different remedial strategies that may address mass stored in the compartments described in the 21-Compartment Model.

Finally, a discussion on stakeholder and regulatory considerations are presented, followed by a collection of case studies that demonstrate practical application of the concepts presented throughout the guidance.

Cleanup work to remove hazardous substances from Victoria Harbour in British Columbia is scheduled to begin shortly with the announcement early this month by Transport Canada that a clean-up contract had been awarded to Milestone Environmental Contracting Limited. Under the $5,344,000 contract, Milestone will remove hazardous chemicals in sediments from Victoria’s Middle Harbour sea bed.

Victoria, B.C. is located on the southern tip of Vancouver Island off Canada’s Pacific coast. The city has a population of 86,000. The harbour serves as a cruise ship and ferry destination for tourists and visitors to the city and Vancouver Island.

Map of Sediment Clean-up Area of Victoria Harbour, British Columbia

Once the contaminated sediments are removed, it is anticipated that the environmental health of the harbour will be restored. Studies by Transport Canada found that presence of persistent contaminants in the sediments that don’t break down and remain in the environment. The contaminants threaten the marine food web.

The cleanup work will begin in November 2017 and is expected to be completed by January 2018. This involves dredging of contaminated sediment, and transporting the sediment by barge to an approved facility for treatment and disposal. It is estimated that the dredging work will remove 1,200 cubic metres (4,200 cubic feet) of contaminated sediment from the sea bed. The harbour bed will be backfilled with clean material.

The project will be closely monitored by Transport Canada to ensure the safety of workers and the community. Sediment and water quality will be monitored throughout the project to ensure that cleanup objectives are met and that the dredging activities do not have a negative impact on the surrounding environment. For the public’s safety, sections of the lower David Foster Pathway at Laurel Point Park may be closed, but the upper pathway will remain open for the duration of the project.

The Victoria Middle Harbour Remediation Project is funded through the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan, which is coordinated by Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, and provides funding to assess and remediate federal contaminated sites.

The source of the contamination in the harbour is from a paint factory that occupied Laurel Point from 1906 until the mid-1970’s. Factory operations caused damage to the sediments surrounding Laurel Point Park.

Question: My company is purchasing real estate, and we are concerned there may be existing environmental contamination on the property. What steps can we take to protect ourselves from liability?

Answer: Conducting environmental due diligence correctly is essential to protect purchasers of potentially contaminated commercial properties from possible liability far exceeding the value of the property. Strict hazardous waste regulation exists at the federal, state and, sometimes, even the municipal level.

Under both the U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, and corresponding state law, owners of contaminated properties are liable, without regard to fault, for environmental conditions on the property, whether or not the owner was involved in any way in the initial release of the contamination. There are, however, steps prospective purchasers can take to limit this liability.

Hazardous waste laws allow purchasers of potentially contaminated property to conduct the necessary level of investigation, and, if performed correctly, limit their liability.

For example, the Superfund All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) rule provides for certain limitations on liability of a so-called “innocent purchaser” if such an investigation is completed before the acquisition.

The innocent purchaser provision allows a purchaser who, under certain circumstances, did not know and “had no reason to know” that the property was contaminated to avoid later Superfund liability. Similar rules apply to state hazardous waste liability. Importantly, to avoid that liability, the purchaser must be able to establish it “carried out all appropriate inquiries … into the previous ownership and uses of the facility in accordance with generally accepted good commercial and customary standards and practices.”

Careful compliance with AAI requirements can be used later to support the “innocent landowner” defense to liability of the new owner. The burden of proof is on the purchaser to establish it is entitled to this and other such landowner liability defenses.

The key element of proof is the Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). Buyers of commercial property typically conduct a Phase I ESA to evaluate the potential for contamination in accordance with ASTM Standard E1527-13.

Following the ASTM Standard demonstrates compliance with the EPA’s AAI rule, that protects prospective purchasers of property from liability under CERCLA. This area of the law is unusually complicated, and it is therefore usually necessary to have the advice and assistance of qualified environmental consultants and environmental legal counsel to assure that the legal and financial protections against hazardous waste liability will actually be available, if needed in the future.

This article was first published in Know the Law, a bi-weekly column sponsored by McLane Middleton, Professional Association. Know the Law provides general legal information, not legal advice. We recommend that you consult a lawyer for guidance specific to your particular situation.

_______________________

About the Author

Vigo C. Fish is an Environmental and Energy Associate in the Administrative Law Department where he assists clients with a wide variety of energy and environmental matters. Viggo received his J.D., cum laude, and Master of Energy Regulation and Law (MERL) degree, magna cum laude, from Vermont Law School (2015), and his B.A. in English from Providence College (2010). While in law school, Viggo worked as a Research Analyst at Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy and the Environment and as a Clinician in the Energy Clinic. In addition, Viggo worked as a Markets and Policy Intern in the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Strategic Energy Analysis Center.

The basis for this training course is the United States Interstate Technology and Regulatory (ITRC) guidance: Bioavailability of Contaminants in Soil: Considerations for Human Health Risk Assessment (BCS-1). This guidance describes the general concepts of the bioavailability of contaminants in soil, reviews the state of the science, and discusses how to incorporate bioavailability into the human health risk assessment process.

The target audience for this guidance and training course are: project managers interested in decreasing uncertainty in the risk assessment which may lead to reduced remedial action costs, and risk assessors new to bioavailability or those who want additional confidence and training in the current methods and common practices for using bioavailability assessment to more accurately determine human health risk at a contaminated site.

As a participant in this training you should learn to: apply the decision process to determine when a site-specific bioavailability assessment may be appropriate, use the ITRC Review Checklist to develop or review a risk assessment that includes soil bioavailability, consider factors that affect arsenic, lead and PAH bioavailability, select appropriate methods to evaluate soil bioavailability, and use tools to develop site-specific soil bioavailability estimates and incorporate them into human health risk assessment. For more information and to register, see https://www.itrcweb.org or https://clu-in.org/live.